With the top defensive players increasingly getting the better of him often in recent years, Roger Federer would like to speed up the game of tennis.

Or at least the courts the matches are played on.

Federer lost to Novak Djokovic in the final of the season-ending ATP finals on Monday, and then praised the top-ranked Serb's ability to retrieve so many shots and keep the ball in play. That's a trait Djokovic shares with Federer's other two biggest rivals -- Rafael Nadal and Andy Murray -- and the Swiss star said attacking play doesn't always reap the benefits it deserves even on hard courts because they're often slower than they used to be.

"It's an easy fix. Just make quicker courts, then it's hard to defend," Federer said. "Attacking style is more important. It's only on this type of slow courts that you can defend the way we are all doing right now."

Monday's final at the O2 Arena had a familiar feel to it. Federer did most of the attacking, trying to dictate play with his forehand and aggressive shot making. But Djokovic, as he often does, kept finding ways to get the ball back over the net and was sharper on the key points.

Federer won the first nine points of the match and was up an early break in both sets, but Djokovic recovered to win 7-6 (6), 7-5.

Federer was the two-time defending champion in London and emphasized that he was happy with this court, calling it one of the faster indoor surfaces on the circuit. He said slower courts are also good for long rallies -- which are a big crowd pleaser -- but that having more variety in the surfaces would force players to learn to be more aggressive.

"What you don't want is that you hit 15 great shots and at the end, it ends up in an error," he said. "So I think sometimes quicker courts do help the cause. I think it would help from time to time to move to something a bit faster. That would help to learn, as well, for many different players, different playing styles, to realize that coming to the net is a good thing, it's not a bad thing."

Federer has won a record-equaling seven Wimbledon titles on grass, the quickest surface, but has only one French Open title on the slower clay, where Nadal has repeatedly thwarted him.

Djokovic and Murray also rely heavily on their great defensive abilities, which have helped set them apart from the rest of the pack.

Having more tournaments played on faster surfaces could make it easier for other players to challenge the sport's "Big Four," Federer said, adding that he wasn't sure tournament directors would necessarily buy into that.

"I think some variety would be nice, some really slow stuff and then some really fast stuff, instead of trying to make everything sort of the same," he said. "You sort of protect the top guys really by doing that because you have the best possible chance to have them in the semis at this point, I think. But should that be the goal? I'm not sure."

Djokovic said his strategy against Federer is usually to try and extend the rallies and hope for an opportunity.

"He's somebody that is very aggressive, that likes to finish points very quickly," Djokovic said. "But I managed to get a lot of shots back into the court, being passive, a couple meters behind the baseline. ... That was one of the goals tonight, to always try to get him into the longer rallies where I think I had the better chance."

Click to expand...

My thoughts on this are as follows:

This will sound like sour grapes from Fed given its timing, but I've always agreed with him in this regard, but I can almost guarantee that fans of the other 3 won't. He's not saying all the courts should be fast, he's just asking for some variety. There are probably too many HC's as it is, and almost all of them are too similar IMHO, not to mention the grass is slower. Think of it this way if you're a fan of 1 or more of the other 3. It should prolong their careers, and that would be better for everyone.

Fed realizes he isn't going to win anything of significance anymore without a fast surface so obviously this for his own personal benefit.. But I agree with him, there should be a some fast surfaces. Wimbledon, YEC, and Flushing should have stayed. We have enough slower courts during the first hard court swing and clay season.. Thats half the season.. Thats enough

One of the great things about tennis before was guys had to deal with both conditions (fast and slow) during the first and second half of the season.. Now its the same old slow crapola year round. It breeds complacency, no game plan, no implementation of new strategy.. NOTHING.. its a free ride for slow court grinders

People think I'm crazy when I say were going to have 4-5 more players in the next 10 years win the career grand slam.. But this is the reason why its going to happen. When Prior it was done ONCE in 30 some years?

How about a modest condo in a quiet retirement community in Florida - has he considered that?

Click to expand...

Given that he's world number 2, was number 1 for a few months this year, won 3 masters series titles, Wimbledon, and had very consistent results all year, I'd say that retirement is the last thing on his mind.

He could easily have won the match today if he'd served better at the crucial moments. I expect he'll be disappointed and angry with himself for not winning the match.

This will sound like sour grapes from Fed given its timing, but I've always agreed with him in this regard, but I can almost guarantee that fans of the other 3 won't. He's not saying all the courts should be fast, he's just asking for some variety. There are probably too many HC's as it is, and almost all of them are too similar IMHO, not to mention the grass is slower. Think of it this way if you're a fan of 1 or more of the other 3. It should prolong their careers, and that would be better for everyone.

So what does everybody else think?

Click to expand...

well apparently he said the WTF is one of the fastest indoor courts and he wants slow and fast, so it doesn't sound like he's blaming the loss on the court speed, maybe he was asked about players becoming so good at defending

Given that he's world number 2, was number 1 for a few months this year, won 3 masters series titles, Wimbledon, and had very consistent results all year, I'd say that retirement is the last thing on his mind.

He could easily have won the match today if he'd served better at the crucial moments. I expect he'll be disappointed and angry with himself for not winning the match.

Don't expect Federer to go anywhere for a good while yet.

Click to expand...

Perhaps the reason why retirement is the last thing on his mind is because there are serious problems with his brain.

i was expecting federer to come into the net way more than he actually did..still too much trading shots from the baseline from fed, he has the skills to do it more.

that would shorten things..but its obvious the courts are getting slower, in a way it helps federer..if he is out of position because maybe he is a bit slower or tired than the old days..it gives him a split second longer to reach that shot if the ball isnt skidding through..

the downside being longer rallies with the baseline boys, unless....fed comes to the net more...:? its all up to fed that is.

He's right. No wonder that the top 5, aside from Federer, are all glorified pushers. No need for talent and shotmaking ability because it will be neutralized by endless baseline retrieving. So you get 4-5 hour matches on so-called fast hard courts with 20+ shot rallies which invariably end up with an error. Not to mention that the length of matches has been steadily increasing, which will lead to more injuries and shortened careers.

There needs to be more of a balance between fast and slow surfaces on the tour. Deep down every tennis fan knows Federer is correct whether they like him or loathe him.

It's like peope knew Nadal was correct when he was saying that there is far too much hard court tennis on the calendar.

If I had my way, every indoor tournament on the calendar would be held on carpet instead of hard courts. There are already so many tournaments held on outdoor hard, why do there need to be so many indoor hard tournaments as well?

There are just way too many slow hard court tournaments on the ATP calendar, and slow hard courts are the most dangerous and damaging surface to/on players' bodies as well.

The 90s conditions are the only way to go.. A varying distinct difference between all surfaces all throughout the year..This makes dominating all through the year much more difficult. You have to adopt different strategies and game plans.. You have to develop more of an all court game.

The 90s conditions are the only way to go.. A varying distinct difference between all surfaces all throughout the year..This makes dominating all through the year much more difficult. You have to adopt different strategies and game plans.. You have to develop more of an all court game.

You had different winners at a lot of places (outside of Sampras at wimbledon and to a lesser degree USO) but the conditions broke up the monotony of 2-3 guys dominating everything because of homogenized conditions.. Made it way more exciting to me.

It was exciting to see a lot of different threats and names to the potential throne throughout the season.

The modern technology enables players to dictate with authority and depth from their own baselines in a way they never could in the 1990s, let alone in decades before that.

Click to expand...

Past racket technology and diversified conditions prohibited players from hitting winner 10 feet beyond the baseline, 20 shot rallies from the baseline all match, and forced players to use THINKING, strategic play, net rushing, chip and charge, precision and placement and more all court play etc.. THings some could argue is severely missing from the game today

So 20 shot pusher rallies at every tournament without lack of all court prowess, strategy,etc. the ENTIRE year is going forward?

OK i guess. Some people love it.. Not everyone has to though

Click to expand...

When players with today's equipment can hit balls with this depth and authority, as well as with such spin, the variety of the game gets less. In the 1990s, even in the gruelling rallies on clay, there wasn't this power and depth that we see today. Charging into the net is now more difficult than ever. In contrast, if we go back to the 1960s, staying back was never harder and you were compelled to go to the net a lot.

Past racket technology and diversified conditions prohibited players from hitting winner 10 feet beyond the baseline, 20 shot rallies from the baseline all match, and forced players to use THINKING, strategic play, net rushing, chip and charge, precision and placement and more all court play etc.. THings some could argue is severely missing from the game today

Click to expand...

In the 1990s, the anti-change brigade said "there's too much power in the game. We need to go back to the era when talent mattered, not power", yet the power of the 1990s game is soft compared to the 2010s game.

I doubt it personally, because with the modern technology, players can just dictate with depth from their own baselines so well. It has made the old school serve and volley game extremely difficult to execute. And even in the 1990s, players like Sampras and Becker regularly stayed back and rallied on hardcourts.

Lol Fed getting desperate. Not gonna enjoy AO much either Fed, are you? :twisted:
In Madrid, he was raving about how he could adjust to any surface so well and how lacking other players were who couldn't. Look how he's changing his mind now. Players should have total flexibility to adjust to any surface as long as they're fast. Sure, Fed, sure. I am quite enjoying this

Well, I'm not saying S&V would be back (it won't), but you'd see shorter rallies, more winners, more net play and a generally more offensive game on faster surfaces. You already see that at the few so-called fast HC tournaments left (Cincy and what's the other one... Dubai?).

You'd see serve fests and 1/2 shot rallies and no one other than a handful of TW posters wants to see that.
I said that in another thread but medium paced is the way to go: give equal opportunity to offense and defense. Most entertaining tennis guaranteed.

He is indirectly saying djokovic is a pusher which indeed he is apparent from the last match, his strategy seems simple just put the ball in court and wait for the error which anyone can see if they watched match clearly -truth. The top pusher awards from top 4 should be given to 1. Murray 2. joker hence these guys matches are always not predictable. Once you go slow there is no going back feddy. we are stuck with insanely slow courts.

The 90s conditions are the only way to go.. A varying distinct difference between all surfaces all throughout the year..This makes dominating all through the year much more difficult. You have to adopt different strategies and game plans.. You have to develop more of an all court game.

Tennis has gone downhill in this regard.

Click to expand...

Yep. I agree. I think 70s - 90s conditions had most varieties and thus much
tougher to win multiple slams.

In fact, Federer himself complained US Open courts are so fast "unplayable" in 2003.

Click to expand...

No, he said in 2005 that the all the courts have gotten very slow and that there aren't anymore North American HCs that are unplayable from the baseline, he was also saying in those years that he would like to serve and volley more but doesn't think that conditions are ideal for it.

Not to mention that over the years he has complained several times about the homogenization of the game and slowdown of surfaces.

Not sour grapes, i have nothing against novak he followed his strategy implemented it and won but are you saying djoker did not push his way to victory ?

Click to expand...

Of course not. Are you insane? Unless a pusher to you is a guy who doesn't serve ace on every point or winner on the second shot. You need to revise your definition because no one plays tennis like this at the highest level these days. (Except for Isner maybe and his game is a crashing bore.) Djoko's use of angles yesterday was particularly brilliant. Loved it.

Of course not. Are you insane? Unless a pusher to you is a guy who doesn't serve ace on every point or winner on the second shot. You need to revise your definition because no one plays tennis like this at the highest level these days. (Except for Isner maybe and his game is a crashing bore.) Djoko's use of angles yesterday was particularly brilliant. Loved it.

Click to expand...

Sure,he used the angles so well just to get one more ball back ad nauseum. Cvac plays some of the most boring,mindnumbing,robotic tennis on the tour. It's horrible from the word go.

And I agree that the courts should be sped up a little. Tennis has turned into a game of neverending Pong. It's nearly impossible to hit winners anymore.

You know, Federer may come off as being arrogant at times, but that doesn't mean the man isn't right once in a while. He makes a very legitimate point, but perhaps the timing isn't so hot. Is what it is. I mean, the courts are moderately to very slow, and this isn't news.

If he can use his star power to influence tournament directors to speed up courts for selfish reasons, than good for him but better for the game.

No, he said in 2005 that the all the courts have gotten very slow and that there aren't anymore North American HCs that are unplayable from the baseline, he was also saying in those years that he would like to serve and volley more but doesn't think that conditions are ideal for it.

Not to mention that over the years he has complained several times about the homogenization of the game and slowdown of surfaces.

Click to expand...

He also defended surface speed around 2005-6 when people criticized surface speed and claimed Federer dominated because surfaces favor baseliners.

He predominantly played baseline on hard courts and indoor carpet even before
2003.

He also said he realized he serve and volley when he was nervous and found
him winning more by doing that less.

Novak is an A grade grinder who benefits from pure luck. By that I mean whenever he's losing, his hit-em-as-hard-as-you-can shots somehow find the lines.

By the way, he also sucks at net. And at overhead smashes (just look at how many he's missed this year on big moments, especially against Nadal on clay). He's a terrible player in the wind as well.

Click to expand...

Pure luck, hum? lol Apart from a few goofed up overheads, you're wrong about everything. He uses the net well, he's certainly not a ball basher a la Blake, he probably has the best backhand on the tour right now and he's an offensive baseliner (like most players these days) which is not the same as a grinder. Also shot placement has more to do with technique than luck. butthurt all the way today, aren't we? don't worry, you can always try summoning a hurricane next time he plays Fed although I remember a very windy Miami with a memorable Fed racquet destruction that went all Djoko's way in the end. :twisted:

No, that's how a baseliner would try on Wimbledon in the 90s conditions not in 2003's conditions, Hewitt and Nalbandian proved the year before you can easily play baseline tennis there now after the changes they've done to the surface/balls.

Then everybody switched to baseline after they see how Federer wins from baseline.

Click to expand...

Not really, they switched to the style conditions rewarded the most, nothing to do with Federer who as I said won Wimbledon by playing all-court tennis (atleast you could give him that much) in a year after Hewitt already won it from the baseline (and decimated Henman in SF).